[sixgun_symphony]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.

Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.

*full story* (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r)

[DeltaElite]

So France is not an ally.
This will effect our military ability in what way? :neener:

[Stephen Ewing]

We just lost the Trojan Frog. You remember, the French surrender and clog enemy logistics with prisoners.

Steve

[Waitone]

The French just soiled their messkit. They sandbagged Powell and lied to Bush. Not a good way to influence these guys.

France stands to lose bigtime with their stunt. The French oil company has an exclusive agreement to develop a 30 billion barrel oil field in Iraq. Gone.

Infrastructure construction after the war? French need not apply.

Post war occupation? Most likely not.

The French have a long standing history of siding with Islamists. Now they will pay the tab. At some point the French will try to get back on board before the war begins. I hope Bush tells them, "Too late."

[cratz2]

<Lester Burnham voice>

I think I just found a new personal hero.

<end Lester Burnham voice>

[coonan357]

where the french anyones alli? ever?
:scrutiny:

[Baba Louie]

And to think that the US Army had to stand aside to allow DeGaulle to be the first to enter Paris.

Lafayette has been paid back in full several times over, thank you very much.

Adios

[Mike Irwin]

They're just now figuring this out?

France hasn't been an ally for many, many years.

Holy crap...

[TexasVet]

I picked up a snippet of talk radio from Houston today while coming back from the woods here in East Texas. Some Talk Jock down there is beginning to organize a boycott of French goods. Besides wine I can't afford, I don't remember ever seeing anything from France for sale around here, but if I ever do, I will avoid it and mention it to the seller.
And from now on, we are eating British "chips" instead of French Fries! Of course, without the vinegar (!) they are the same thing.:D

[Mr. James]

February 4, 2003, 10:30 a.m.

Old Habits
The game France is playing.

By Amir Taheri

How long can one milk a cow? This is the question that France's President Jacques Chirac will have to answer within the next few days. The cow in question is Gaullism, a pseudo-ideology that has marked French politics since the late 1950s.

Domestically, Gaullism is one version of the corporatist ideologies popular in the last century. These ideologies are based on the myth of a nation that transcends class and other boundaries. The myth is embodied in a charismatic strongman. The late General Charles De Gaulle, the father of Gaullism, often echoed Louis XIV's notorious dictum: "I am the state!"

De Gaulle was a good face of political corporatism; more malevolent ideologies would be lead by Franco, Salazar, Peron, and Mussolini.

In foreign-policy terms, Gaullism means a mixture of feigned grandeur, a homeopathic dose of anti-Americanism, sympathy for other regimes built around a "strongman," and a great deal of posturing.

For Gaullist foreign policy the way things look is more important than the way things are.

When the Algerian war of independence started in the mid-1950s it was clear that the Cold War rivalry between the West and the USSR was the real subtext of the conflict. The Soviet bloc and its Arab allies supported the Algerian uprising against France in order to weaken the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

De Gaulle, who seized power in a coup in May 1958, understood this and worked hard to bring the Algerian war to an end. He succeeded in 1962. That, in turn, enabled him to withdraw from the military section of NATO while remaining a member of the treaty.

The move, meaningless in practical terms, helped strengthen the myth of Gaullism as a "third way" between the rival Soviet and American "hegemonies."

De Gaulle has often been accused of harboring anti-American sentiments. But his actual record does not support that charge. Whenever it came to the brass tacks De Gaulle was firmly on the side of the United States. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis for example, De Gaulle informed President John Kennedy that France would be one hundred percent on the side of the U.S. in a third world war. De Gaulle's support for the U.S. was also consistent through the Vietnam War (that, incidentally, the Americans had inherited from the French).

The Gaullist game was played by President Francois Mitterrand, the socialist politician who led France for 14 years (1981-1995). Missing no opportunity for making some anti-American gesticulations, Mitterrand always ended up firmly on the side of Washington on all major issues of international existence. In the early 1980s he acted as Washington's point man in the campaign to persuade the Europeans to accept the installation of American long-range missiles in Germany and the Benelux countries. It was also in close consultations with the U.S. that Mitterrand planned and intelligently executed the destruction of the French Communist Party.

Mitterrand also played the Gaullist game in the first Gulf War against Saddam. He kept sending emissaries and messages to Baghdad and came out with half a dozen formulae to prevent war, even to the point of letting Iraq annex part of coastal Kuwait.

But when it became clear that the U.S. was determined to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait by force, Mitterrand changed course and sent the French army into battle under American command. (To do so he had to force his pro-Saddam defense minister Jean-Pierre Chevenment to resign.)

That episode demonstrated not only the limits of Gaullism but also its ultimate irrelevance in the post-Cold War world.

France paid heavily for its Gaullist gesticulations in 1990-91.

French businesses ended up with crumbs in the lucrative regional reconstruction market that followed the liberation of Kuwait. France was also excluded from the Madrid Peace conference of 1992. The Arabs ended up with a deep distrust of French motives and methods while the United States clearly identified the United Kingdom as its sole sure-fire ally in Europe.

Chirac's first opportunity for his own Gaullist gesticulation as president came in 2001 over the war in Afghanistan. He played the usual Gaullian "yes-but" game in the hope that either the war against the Taliban will not happen or that the U.S. will become bogged down in a conflict lasting years.

But when it became clear that the Taliban would run away without fighting, and that the U.S. was heading for a complete victory in Afghanistan, Chirac performed a Mitterrandian U-turn and dispatched ships, planes, and troops to the area. They arrived when the war had practically ended. The Americans said merci beaucoup, but made sure that France was excluded from decisions concerning the future of Afghanistan and Central Asia.

It is a mystery why Chirac would want to play a game that can only harm France's long-term interests in the Middle East.

Last week Chirac's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin openly threatened to use the French veto to prevent a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The French insist that all they want is a delay of a few months after the council has received and debated a report from the U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq. That means postponing war until climatic conditions, especially high temperatures, render fighting far more difficult for any coalition led by the U.S.

Chirac's choices are narrowing by the day. Soon he will have to choose between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein.

He could come out with a clear "no" to a war against Iraq, just as Germany's Gerhard Schroeder has done, thus winning the esteem of the antiwar movement. The price would be the exclusion of France from shaping the future of Iraq and the new political architecture of the Middle East.

On the other hand, Chirac could help the U.S. obtain the green light of the Security Council, thus keeping the inevitable war under some form of international control. The U.N., and not the U.S., would then appoint the transition government in Baghdad, giving France a say in future developments in Iraq and the region as a whole.

The worst option for Chirac would be to continue his anti-American gesticulations until the 11th hour, and then rush to seek a side chair at the high table. If he were to do so, Chirac would show that while he roars like De Gaulle he has the heart of Rene Coty, the ineffectual politician who acted as France's president in the 1950s.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri020403.asp

[Wildalaska]

Wheres France?

WilddotheyevenexistontheowrldstageorjustthinktheydoAlaska

[Phyphor]

France, allies? Since when?

WW1, where the USA finally sent in troops in 1918 to bail those fools out? (Not trying to dog on the British, who seemed to be doing a helluva fine job, as opposed to the French,)

WW2, where the French frelling SURRENDERED to the Germans, AFTER their stupid Maginot line was simply BYPASSED?
Not to mention how they basically thumbed their noses after the frelling war. "Oh, well, gee, we had it all under control! "

Then we went into Vietnam, to finish up THEIR war, after all, that was THEIR colony that fell apart.

When we went into Afghanistan, where were the French? About 6 months behind, if I remember correctly.
"Bonjour! The shooting, it is stopped? Ok, we'll stay for some coffee and crumpets!"

I do believe the last time the French helped us at all was during the Revolutionary war (I also think they did in the War of 1812, but my memory is a bit fuzzy.. , )... I'm kinda wondering if all their brave kids got killed back then, and the cowards survived to reproduce...

You watch, though. The MINUTE something threatens France, they'll be back in our pocket, begging for help, meanwhile, they'll 'bravely' surrender to hold the enemy off...... :banghead: :banghead:

[Leadbutt]

The only thing worth a damn thats French is the Legion,and they aren't allowed to do what they can,by the idiots that run the place.

[BigG]

Speaking as a French descendant, the last good Frenchman was Lafayette, and he's been dead a long time. :rolleyes: They can go to :cuss:

[Dad-Gummit]

I'm sure after we kick Sadaams butt, all the French will come out of the woodwork saying that they were in the resistance.



"Ya bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys"

[foghornl]

Think of the boon to collectors of Military Curios & Relics after the Iraq issue.............

French Military Surplus Rifles Very Good to Excellent condition Never Fired....only dropped once.

$10 extra for "Hand Select" with your choice of truck, half-track, or boot marks on stocks and forends.

$5 extra for matching bent bayonet.

:neener:




Never been to France, but wife went (years before we met) and said the Paris folks are the rudest she has ever had the misfortune to meet. Attitude was along the lines of "Yankee go home and stay home. Just send us your Greenback Dollars".

[mjustice]

Is there any way we can get our money back from the Marshall plan? :)

Chirac is a chump and the French have no clue how the world works. Look at both world wars and Vietnam.
I just hope the US remembers this the next time someone overruns their country.

The NR article has it right - France can posture all they want, but no matter which way they go now, they will have little to no input on the future of the Middle East.

MJ

[MrAcheson]

I know some French folks and have worked with them in grad school. Many french are fairly nice people. Their politics are to the left of an Americans but they're Europeans so you have to expect that. They like to have a good time just like everyone else. Not as cool as the Germans mind you but good people nonetheless.

I say many because a lot of french people are unfortunately bastards. They resent that the "lingua franca" in the world is now english and now encroachment of english on their native french. They resent being treated like a second rate power even though they are. They resent that American economics is superior to their own socialist systems.

The center of bastardy in France is Paris. The center of population in France is Paris. The center of politics in France is Paris. This means that France has lots of bastards, especially in the touristy parts most Americans visit. This also means that the bastards run France to the detriment of everyone including the french.

There are nice frenchmen and frenchwomen out there. You just have to go into the hinterlands of france to find them and they are so beaten down by the bastards and parisians they are afraid to move.

[cratz2]

Why is it that the French always seem to have an 'underground resistance' When was the last time that France mobilized against an enemy? Not activated troops (troups? :p ) in the area but actually actively sent soldiers away from France to another country to start fighting as soon as they arrived?

[T.Stahl]

Well, say you're in a group of equals. Two out of the group storm away towards an enemy and call the others to follow. Two out the rest choose to stay where they are, because the action of the first two was not discussed about and decided upon by the whole group of equals.
The question is not whether or not France is still your ally. The question is whether or not the USA still believes in the NATO being a group of equals and whether or not the USA respects the other members' opinions.
We are not your auxiliaries and we do not have to follow your will.

[OF]

That is quite correct. Germany and France can do as they please, no one is saying otherwise and I would not have it any other way. But make the decision and live with the consequences. If they want to stay out, stay out. But don't whine when we examine that decision and call it lacking.

For us, this has nothing to do with making Germany or France 'follow our lead', but it seems to be important to them that they are not seen as 'following our lead'. If Germany stays it's hand because they disagree, as honest and intelligent men often can, then make your choice, stand by it and prepare to defend it. The part that bugs me to no end is that the justification for the decision is that they don't want to follow. "Let's just wait a couple more months" For what? Simply to feel that they had an influence on the course of this thing.

- Gabe

[cuchulainn]

Well, say you're in group of equals. For more than a decade, someone has been threatening the group. Your group of equals has discussed what to do about this fellow many, many times over the decade and has attempted to deal with the situation in many ways. Finally, two of the group of equals say, "Look, we've had enough. Let's deal with this guy with some finality." For months, they attempt to persuade the others to agree. They discuss it many, many times. Then they discuss it again. They even go to another, larger group of equals to get its blessing ... twice. But two of the group of equals resist because they fear risking their business deals with the threatening party, so the group of equals discusses it some more out of respect for the opinion of the resisters .... and some more. Finally, the two wanting to take action tell the resisters that they can do what they want, but action will be taken. The resisters say, "Hey, stop trying to tell us what to do." The two leaders say, "We're not telling you what to do; we're telling you what we're going to do with or without you." Then they walk slowly but purposefully toward the threatening party. Everyone follows except the two resisters, who apparently suffer under a delusion that nothing was ever discussed with them and that the slow, purposeful walk of the others is "rushing." The resisters stamp their feet and shout after the slow, purposeful walkers, "See! You don't respect our opinion because you didn't follow it!"

[Hutch]

Equals? EQUALS??? Nope. Ain't now, and never was. I bet the US spent more defending Yurp from the Sovs than the Yurpeans did. NATO has quickly evolved into something unrecognizable from the Cold War. This is understandable, since the Cold War is no more. The US foreign policy should not be subordinated to the good graces of the UN or NATO. We have gathered un-earned and ungrateful antipathy from both, and neither are worth the treasure we have poured into them.

THEY weren't attacked on 9/11, WE were. THEIR military might didn't displace Saddam from his stranglehold on Kuwait, OURS did, with minor - from a military standpoint, contribution from the rest of the coalition.

To the degree that they (NATO, UN, take your pick) agree with us, they are un-needed, and to the degree that they disagree, they are unwelcome.

They can all go urinate up a rope. See my sig-line to describe France.

[Ed N.]

Ann Coulter whacked the nail squarely on the head over a year ago:

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2001/122001.htm

[Shalako]

Its time to pack up the Statue of Liberty....ship it back to France....and wash our hands of those bastards.

[Mike Irwin]

I love Ann Coulter!

[BigG]

Foghornl: Nope, milsurp wouldn't be much good to us. The French have not fielded a decent weapon since the Charleville imho. Incidentally, the Charleville is what we used in the revolution and spawned our early Springfield muskets up thru the 1850s which were patterned cloesly after the Charleville (69 caliber).

[WilderBill]

Ahh gee, ya mean we gotta go to war without our "allies" France?

Isn't that like going hunting and forgetting to take along an accordian? :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Berkov]

The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.

[OF]

You have something to say, Vladimir? Or was that a drive-by slandering?

By all means, enlighten the masses! If debate and learning aren't the purpose of this place, than what is? So have at it.

- Gabe

[Sean Smith]

Now that Powell's speech at the UN discredited evertyhing Vladimir has whined about for the last year or so, he's got to whine about something.

:neener:

[DeltaElite]

Don't worry, Vlad has plenty of topics to whine needlessly about. :neener:

[Vladimir Berkov]

Lol, perhaps.

I am just getting sick of the anti-France sentiments on this forum and many others I visit.

This goes from saying that the US won WW1 and saved France from defeat (which is certainly not true.) To saying that they surrendered in WW2 instead of fighting.

In terms of Iraq, why on earth SHOULD France support us?

France has no military reason to get rid of Saddam. He simply isn't a threat to France, or the rest of Europe for that matter. France certainly has no economic reason either, as they use far less oil than we do, and are less sensitive to price changes. Nor do they have any political reason to do so. French culture has a great deal to do with this. The French, by their nature aren't one to impulsively act. They need to be presented with a detailed history of the problem, extensive logical reasoning as to why the proposed action should be taken, etc. Bush's idea that the reasons for invasion are a forgone conclusion doesn't fly in France. That is probably why most French are in favor of more inspections. They don't think Bush has made any case for war.

[Mike Irwin]

Answer this, Vlad.

Given France's well-documented sentiments, why would you expect anything BUT anti-French tendancies here?

No, the United States didn't win WW I for France. But it's well documented that American entry into the war, and the weight that American troops and supplies threw against the Germans in late 1917 and 1918 went a LONG way toward showing the Germans that the war was unwinnable, with the result that it ended in a political settlement instead of a total destruction of Germany.

Another interesting point is that France also lost WW I. Sure, it tacitly was a victory, but WW I is a casebook study in what constitutes a Phyrric Victory. France was left badly broken by the war.

Even worse, France's hard-line attitude toward Germany directly contributed to the rise of Adolph Hitler, while French and British appeasement activities in the 1930s gave Hitler the indication that both nations would simply roll over in the face of German agression.

Here's an inconvenient little fact about France and the United States in WW II.

After the fall of France, those French armies that went into the field, and which landed and fought in Europe during the war, were equipped and supplied almost exclusively with American material.

Several times during the war the French military structure showed its appreciation by threatening to diverge from the overall Western Allied war plan in Europe, to the point where De Gaulle and Eisenhower had several VERY cold meetings.

Eisenhower, time and time again, prevailed against the French inclination to break the Allied line and veer off on their own in a very effective manner -- toe the unified Allied line, or equip your own troops.

After the war, and well into the 1950 and possibly even into the 1960s, the United States stood by France through its political, economic, and military turmoils.

Starting almost immediately after the war, who provided over $2.7 BILLION dollars for the rebuilding of a shatter French nation? Gee, it wouldn't have been the United States, now would it have been? Whoops, it would have been!

When the French economy threatened to collapse in the 1950s, who propped up the French economy with additional emergency loans? The United States.

When France got in over its head in Indochina, who took over its involvement after Dien Bien Phu? Yep, the United States, which put in troops that ended up protecting the French expatriots who decided to stay.

During the same time, who was footing virtually every penny of France's military bill, both domestic and foreign? Yep, the United States.

Throughout the past 50 years, what has the prevailing attitude of the French government and French intellectual community been towards the United States?

Warm and friendly?

Or cold and abusive?

So tell me, Vlad, for all the appreciation the French have shown the United States in the past 5 decades, and which they continue to show to the United States today, why the :cuss: should we have anything by the greatest disdain for an overblown, overinflated nation that hasn't been relevant to world affairs for nearly 100 years?

Tell me, were the Algerian Arab communists, or the Viet Mihn, a threat to the United States?

Nope.

Yet we toed the French line and assisted with military and economic aid.

We took the French side in the United Nations and in the court of world opinion time and time again.

For what reason? We had no compelling interests in Algeria OR Indochina when the French were :cuss:ing things up so badly.

French culture has a LOT to do with the disdain that a lot of Americans feel for them. I've spent more than my fair share of time in France, and really never care to go back again. I spoke the language fairly well, did everything I could do to avoid being seen as the "typical ugly American," and it made no difference to many of the French I came across.

In 1985 the French detonated a mine under the Rainbow Warrior because Greenpeace took umbrage with France's nuclear testing, and tried to claim national interests were being preserved by sinking a delapidated ship manned by essentially hippies in a harbor half-way around the world.

In 1986, less than a year later, the United States requested permission to fly through French airspace to carry out a legitimate military strike against Libyian military targets for Libyan assistance in bombings that killed American citizens in Germany.

France, in their finest form, denied that permission.

Sorry about that errant bomb on your embassy, :cuss:*****. Guess you should have painted a huge peace sign on it and called it the Rainbow Embassy.

:cuss: the French. :cuss: them and their overblown estimation of themselves and their role in the world.

The French have a "poor, beset upon me" attitude that puts everything that the Soviets could ever come up with to shame.

[DeltaElite]

I like French Bread and Croissants.
There, I said something nice about the French. :neener:

[Vladimir Berkov]

No, the United States didn't win WW I for France. But it's well documented that American entry into the war, and the weight that American troops and supplies threw against the Germans in late 1917 and 1918 went a LONG way toward showing the Germans that the war was unwinnable, with the result that it ended in a political settlement instead of a total destruction of Germany.

My point is that many Americans seem to think that America not only won the war, but that the France did nothing and pretty much just waited for the Americans to show up do their dirty work for them. The French had millions of casualties during the war, far in excess of American casualities. America didn't do anything for France until 1917, and even then entered only because of that idiot Wilson.

Another interesting point is that France also lost WW I. Sure, it tacitly was a victory, but WW I is a casebook study in what constitutes a Phyrric Victory. France was left badly broken by the war.

And? What is the alternative? Should they have just given up? They didn't start the bloody war, so even if the price of fighting is was high, it was at least marginally better than defeat.

Even worse, France's hard-line attitude toward Germany directly contributed to the rise of Adolph Hitler, while French and British appeasement activities in the 1930s gave Hitler the indication that both nations would simply roll over in the face of German agression.

England was just as at fault for the Versailles treaty, and Wilson again screwed up the negotiations which meant that the treaty in the end was almost certain to lead to war again. France and Britain HAD to give in to Hitlers European demands, they simply couldn't fight him themselves. Neither had the military or the resources for such a war.


After the fall of France, those French armies that went into the field, and which landed and fought in Europe during the war, were equipped and supplied almost exclusively with American material.

And? Your point? All the free forces of different European nations fought mainly with US or British equipment out of simple necessity. It is hard to use your own equipment when your country is occupied by the enemy.

Starting almost immediately after the war, who provided over $2.7 BILLION dollars for the rebuilding of a shatter French nation? Gee, it wouldn't have been the United States, now would it have been? Whoops, it would have been!

And? The French are grateful for the American liberation and assistance. But this has nothing to do with Iraq, unless you expect that the French should be mere American puppets because the Americans bailed them out once. The French could simply say that without their support, America would never even be a country (which is very true.)

When France got in over its head in Indochina, who took over its involvement after Dien Bien Phu? Yep, the United States, which put in troops that ended up protecting the French expatriots who decided to stay.

I hardly think you can blame Vietnam on the French. That was an entirely American farce.


Throughout the past 50 years, what has the prevailing attitude of the French government and French intellectual community been towards the United States?

Neither. The French like to see their nation as independant and important. As I said, they are grateful for US liberation, but they see American cultural imperialism taking over their country, and France becoming a third-rate power with no say in world affairs.

French culture has a LOT to do with the disdain that a lot of Americans feel for them. I've spent more than my fair share of time in France, and really never care to go back again. I spoke the language fairly well, did everything I could do to avoid being seen as the "typical ugly American," and it made no difference to many of the French I came across.

I don't know what you did, but I have also spent much time in France and have never had that problem. The French culture is much, much more subtle than the American, so it is very easy for them to peg someone as a foreigner. You have the right to your own opinions, but I guess I have had completely opposite experiences from you. I also talk to many French people who are living in the US on a regular basis, and have yet to see the attitude you are talking about.

[The Silver Bullet 1719]

The point of an "ally" is to "help" others. So France can sit there and eat pastries, we will probably be better off without them. Mike, good post also :)

[Pointman]

Didn't ya'll know? They're run by Eisenhower High School Music Department (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200301/COM20030131c.html ) now!

My favorite snip (France asking for help from President Bush)

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush vowed to "immediately send Secretary of State Powell to the United Nations to request the scheduling of a vote for the formulation of a committee to create an investigative team, at the earliest possible convenience."

:D

[Mike Irwin]

"My point is that many Americans seem to think that America not only won the war, but that the France did nothing and pretty much just waited for the Americans to show up do their dirty work for them."

And many French see things in reverse, Vladimir.

The (bow heads reverently) Maquis won the ENTIRE Second World War!

France was GLORIOUSLY VICTORIOUS in World War I!

Americans? They sat at home and did NOTHING! NOTHING!

Revisionist history is alive and well in France too, Vlad.

"And? What is the alternative? Should they have just given up? They didn't start the bloody war, so even if the price of fighting is was high, it was at least marginally better than defeat."

No, Vlad, the alternative is to give credit where credit is due, take lumps where lumps are due, and to NOT try to make the whole thing into something that it wasn't, which was a Glorious French Victory.

The Franco-Prussian War of 1871 was more of a freaking victory because the Prussian overran France so quickly. There wasn't time to bleed France dry.


"Wilson screwed up the negotiations..."

Given the attitude of France, and less so Britain, the negotiations were COMPLETELY hosed from the start. The result would have been exactly the same had Wilson not even entered into the negotiations.

Absolutely do NOT try to pin this on Wilson. The only reason the United States was there in the first place was because Europe couldn't handle it's own affairs. God, that's a consistent refrain from the 20th century.

"And? Your point?"

The point, which whizzed over your head, is that French troops gained what little glory they did in World War II in large part because of the material generosity of the United States, and then repaid that generosity by trying several times to derail the Allied war plans. With friends like that, who needs the Germans?

"And? The French are grateful for the American liberation and assistance."

Oh? Kind of hard to get that impression from Le Monde, or from the French Socialists. Their "gratitude" comes in the form of sneers.


"I hardly think you can blame Vietnam on the French. That was an entirely American farce."

Do you have ANY clue about the history of the French, as in FRANCE, in Indochina?

Do you have any clue as to what most of the French troops were wearing when they evacuated French Indochina? American uniforms, carrying American guns, and supported by American aircraft.

The United States inherited a COMPLETELY screwed up situation from the French, and made the same mistake that the French made in getting involved in it.

But don't for a SECOND try to say that Vietnam was an American only show.

And what does this have to do with Iraq?

You're the one who asked WHY Americans hate the French.

I've explained to you why.

There's a LOT more to it than just Iraq.

Here's a cognative exercise for you.

Take a look through the boards, and see how people talk about Germany.

Interesting thing is that they were the enemy TWICE in the 20th century, and I'd be very comfortable in saying that Americans feel a LOT more kindly towards the Bloody Hun than they do towards the Friendly French.

Even now Germany isn't catching NEARLY the heat that the French are.

Ever wonder why that is?

Could it be because the Germans have proven to be better allies than the French, even when they were the enemy?

[Vladimir Berkov]

No, Vlad, the alternative is to give credit where credit is due, take lumps where lumps are due, and to NOT try to make the whole thing into something that it wasn't, which was a Glorious French Victory.

I never said it was.


Given the attitude of France, and less so Britain, the negotiations were COMPLETELY hosed from the start. The result would have been exactly the same had Wilson not even entered into the negotiations.

Ironically, you are correct. Wilson's insistance of being there in person severely hindered his ability to negotiate through an envoy.

Absolutely do NOT try to pin this on Wilson. The only reason the United States was there in the first place was because Europe couldn't handle it's own affairs. God, that's a consistent refrain from the 20th century.

Absurd. Europe WAS handling its own affaires, America just decided to get involved as it always goes. Americans never seem to remember Washington's parting warning.


Do you have ANY clue about the history of the French, as in FRANCE, in Indochina?

I am not saying that the French didn't completely screw that up, but saying that we fought the Vietnam War because of the French is not exactly true. We could have gotten out easily early on, as the French did.

As I said, you are entitled to your own opinions, and I don't know you experiences. All I know is that my experiences in France showed a completely different story.

[Mike Irwin]

"I never said it was."

No, Vlad, you didn't, nor did I ever claim that you did.

But you DID ask why Americans are so hostile towards the French. In your jumping around, you've lost sight of that.

I've explained to you why Americans aren't so fond of the French, and you've tried to twist the explanations away from that into directions that weren't brought up, or intended.

"Ironically, you are correct. Wilson's insistance of being there in person severely hindered his ability to negotiate through an envoy."

So I suppose, though, that Lloyd George and Clemenceau being present for the negotiations was somehow a good thing, then?

Wilson went to Paris for one reason and one reason alone -- Clemenceau and Lloyd George were also going in person as an adjunct to the treaty meetings that were going on.

Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau didn't sit in on the daily negotiations that were carried out amongst the representatives of the powers. Those WERE carried out by envoys.

The Treaty of Versailles negotiations lasted for FIVE months.

The leaders of the allied nations, including Orlando of Italy, met largely amongst themselves, and to the best of my knowledge, NEVER met with representatives of the Central powers.

Lloyd George and Clemenceau also clashed bitterly over Clemenceau's demands for a harsh peace. Lloyd George predicted that the "French peace" would result in another clash with German.

Funny thing about Clemenceau, though. He lived in the United States for a number of years, and married an American. He also considered settling permanently in the US because he was so impressed with the political structure and freedoms of the citizens.

Unfortunately, when he started his rise to power in France, he lost sight of that and became rather repressive, but that's beside the point.

In trying to make it seem as if Wilson was present daily at the negotiations between the powers, you're incorrect.


"Absurd. Europe WAS handling its own affaires, America just decided to get involved as it always goes. Americans never seem to remember Washington's parting warning."

Nice ad hominem attack there, and one without factual basis at all, Vladimir. You really need to read up on US entry into the War, which had been going on for a number of years before US entry.

Had Europe been able to handle its own political affairs, instead of devolving into a massive, and seemingly unending, war, Washington's warning never would have to have been dusted off.

The vast majority of Americans never wanted to become involved in a European action (with many, many Americans firmly believing that Germany was in the right, actually), and would have been perfectly content to let Europe burn itself into a cinder.

The true role of the Zimmerman telegram will probably never been known, whether it was actually a bona fide German offer to Mexico, but more than a little evidence exists that it was a plant by the Allied powers designed to draw the United States farther into the war.


"We could have gotten out easily early on, as the French did."

Hate to break this to you, but by the time France finally withdrew from Indochina, they had been there for nearly 100 years, and during that time largely fighting a war against separtist forces. It wasn't until the Viet Mihn coalesced in the aftermath of World War II, though, that the situation became very dicey, and eventually ruinous, for the French.

Because the Viet Mihn were Communist, it's no surprise that the United States, at this time cognizant of the growing Cold War, would take a hard-line stance against the entirety of the Vietnamese Peninsula being controlled by Communists.

American policy of the time was to counter Communism where ever it arose -- the Truman Doctrine -- and where it threatened American interests, such as in Korea and in Germany.

Now that we've had this interesting little go-round, Vladamir, let me ask you a couple of questions:

1. Why should Americans be particularly friendly towards France given the French attitude of the last 50 years?

2. Why is it that Germany, and not France, has continuously been America's most important Continential ally in the last 50 years?

3. Why is it that the French decry that relationship, and yet largely did nothing to attempt to swing the situation around to a more favorable Franco-American relationship, and in fact seemed, and still seems, to take great pleasure in doing just about everything it can to sabotage strengthened Franco-American relations?

4. Why is it that French newspapers, and to a degree the French government, calls for greater US involvement in world affairs, and yet goes off the deep end condemning the United States when we do take a greater interest in world affairs? US experience in the Balkans is a good example.

[suvdrvr]

France has agreed to be rude to the terrorist and Iraq. That should fullfill their UN comittment. The fact of the matter is, in for a dime, in for a dollar! Iraq has violated the terms of the cease fire of the Gulf War One. If the un doesn't enforce the terms, they might as well let the US and our allies.

[ZekeLuvs1911]

The only thing I like about the French are french fries! :D The French like to play games. They play their games, we play ours. We play to win though.

[Vladimir Berkov]

There was never any good reason for the United States to get involved in WW1. The nations of Europe, whether they were fighting a world war or not, were not really threatening the United States, not were there any US issues involved, except perhaps free trade which was being hindered by the British, not the Germans. We could have easily stayed out of the war, with no ill effects to us. How the Europeans resolved it is there problem, and I can hardly think of a worse way it could have been resolved.


1. Why should Americans be particularly friendly towards France given the French attitude of the last 50 years?

No idea.


2. Why is it that Germany, and not France, has continuously been America's most important Continential ally in the last 50 years?

Probably because Germany allows the US to us their country as a big military base.


3. Why is it that the French decry that relationship, and yet largely did nothing to attempt to swing the situation around to a more favorable Franco-American relationship, and in fact seemed, and still seems, to take great pleasure in doing just about everything it can to sabotage strengthened Franco-American relations?

Ehhh, not really. The problem is that Americans assume that France will tow the American line and the French seem to react to that more than anything else.

4. Why is it that French newspapers, and to a degree the French government, calls for greater US involvement in world affairs, and yet goes off the deep end condemning the United States when we do take a greater interest in world affairs? US experience in the Balkans is a good example.

No idea.

[Shalako]

"I scratch your back, you scratch mine."

That goes a little beyond a mere semblance of gratitude. As Don Corleone says, "I may at some time have to call on you for a favor." When ever we call on that favor, they turn up their noses and say they will not be our puppet.

We need nothing from the French. Ever again. They do not exist. Unless they want to be our enemy, and then we should be more than happy to oblige.

[hksw]

Invented by the Turks and, like Italian chefs, stolen by the French.

[BigG]

I don't HATE the French. I would have to hate myself. What I hate is their asinine behavior on the world stage and their snotty little kid attitude displayed to visitors who don't happen to speak French well enough to their way of thinking.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I have found that the mere effort of trying to speak French goes a long way. I am not fluent yet, but the simple fact that I tried to converse in the language I think helped a great deal.

[Col. Mustard]

The nations of Europe, whether they were fighting a world war or not, were not really threatening the United States, not were there any US issues involved, except perhaps free trade which was being hindered by the British, not the Germans.

A thousand or so passengers on the Lusitania might have argued this point...

[Vladimir Berkov]

The Lusitania was a British vessel flying under British colours, and which had been officially requisitioned by the British government for war duties. There is also strong circumstantial evidence that it was carrying munitions.


Only 118 Americans died, not a thousand, and in any case they were taking an obvious chance by getting on board when Germany was already using unrestricted submarine warfare.

When you are in a foreign country that is at war (or a foreign ship) you must accept the risks inherent in such a choice.

[Col. Mustard]

The issue was restriction of free trade, not how many of those who died (1198) were American. I'd consider unrestricted submarine warfare a pretty good example of the restriction of trade.

Allegations/circumstantial evidence of munitions was probably irrelevant in 1915.

[Vladimir Berkov]

But it was a British ship, not an American one. What possible connection to American commerce does a British ship have?

The theory at the time was that neutral ships could have free trade even while combatant nations fought, the only restrictions being on munitions. Lusitania was not a neutral ship, it was a British one and Britain was at war with Germany.

[Col. Mustard]

A British ship bringing, say, tourists to the US has no connection to American commerce?

In many parts of the world, even combatants make an effort to spare civilian casualties, hospitals, etc. The fact that Germany chose to sink a civilian ship (whether or not Germany's claims of war cargo were true) did not sit well with us.

[Waitone]

There just doesn't seem to be any end to the insults the French must endure at the hands of the Americans. Not only have we interferred with their wars and pushed them out of the way during the Normandy invasion (if you doubt me just go to the French WW II museum at Les Invalid in Paris) the French wine industry is largely American in origin.

IIRC, several decades ago the French suffered a blight that attacked their vineyards. The solution was to import plants out of Napa Valley and graft American roots onto French grape plants. Does that mean the foundation of the French wine industry is American? No wonder those people have a diaper rash.

[moa]

It does seem silly at this point in time why France seems to be failing to understand the inevitable. A state of war still exists between Iraq and the UN, and the USA and the UK about to restart serious hostilies.

After all, of late, the Iraqi military has been shooting at American and British aircraft over the no-fly zone practically every day.

I am reminded of a situation that occurred back in the 1960s or thereabout. Apparently, President De Gaulle of France insisted to then President Eisenhower that all US troops must vacate France.

Eisenhower's response was, "Does that include the ones in cemeterys too?"

[Vladimir Berkov]

A British ship bringing, say, tourists to the US has no connection to American commerce?

Perhaps of national interest to Americans, but not in terms of the international law of the time. That law was talking about actual commerce, not people travelling on foreign ships. The issue was whether or not neutral ships could trade with combatant nations, not whether neutral tourists could travel on combatant ships.



In many parts of the world, even combatants make an effort to spare civilian casualties, hospitals, etc. The fact that Germany chose to sink a civilian ship (whether or not Germany's claims of war cargo were true) did not sit well with us.

No doubt, but that doesn't mean that the sinking of the Lusitania was a violation of US neutrality, or an issue of American sea commerce.

[cratz2]

This thread is getting pretty... uh... unbearable for me to read.

The French are not entirely worthless during the 20th Century. Close, but not entirely. They have long harbored and aided known terrorists, not just terrorists in the making as the US tends to do. They have much invested in Iraq and I think this time, if it does come to war, that the powers that be are not going to allow the US to obtain any more oil than they can including destroying reserves. This will costs the French a lot of money.

I personally don't care one way or the other about the war with Iraq. I see positives and negatives which make no difference on this thread. Point is, over the past 50 years or so, the French have demonstrated what kind of fighters they are and what alliances they hold dear. It would not seem that they hold any alliances with The United States any longer. If France completely disappeared right now, how badly would it affect the United States? What about the opposite?

[CZ-75]

France and Britain HAD to give in to Hitlers European demands, they simply couldn't fight him themselves. Neither had the military or the resources for such a war.



BS. Until the '38 Munich Accords, France and England could easily have dispatched Hitler, and even then they had a paper strength well in excess of the Germans. Quality and morale were a different matter.

Hitler occupied the Rhineland with a battalion, n'est-pas? France could have stopped Hitler by themselves in '36.

Poor military morale and an unwillingness to take appropriate action, as well as a false sense of security behind the Maginot were the reason France got clobbered. Poor generals and bad, obsolete strategy too.

[Vladimir Berkov]

The French simply couldn't take action, the government was shaky enough as it was without starting a war which is about the last thing the French people wanted at the time. The government would probably have collapsed completely.

Great Britain simply didn't have the resources to fight Hitler on her own, she was having enough problems with her empire. And until fairly late in the 30's she simply didn't have the airpower or tank forces which would have certainly been needed.

[moa]

Not too many years ago divers inspected the Lusitania wreckage. It apparently showed evidence of large internal explosions. In a number of places the hull was blown out. The ship sunk apparenlty quite quickly, which is one of the reasons for the high death toll even though it sunk off the coast of England.

It has long been suspected that the Lusitania's manifests where incomplete and deceptive. It was suspected that the ship was carrying munitions including gun-cotton (nitrocellulose) which can be used for the manufacturing of explosives, none which were listed on the ship's manifests.

[CZ-75]

The French simply couldn't take action, the government was shaky enough as it was without starting a war which is about the last thing the French people wanted at the time. The government would probably have collapsed completely.


Germany didn't have many resources, either, until sometime after the Spanish Civil War, which they were fighting with a lot of biplanes and a few 109s and medium bombers. I think the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht had a paper strength of a half-million men around this time, which was around a quarter of what the French had available, theoretically.


So, rather than resources, as first stated, it was really that France lacked the WILL to fight.

[T.Stahl]

Well, without the help of the USA Germany hadn't been able to start WW2 at all.

[CZ-75]

Well, without the help of the USA Germany hadn't been able to start WW2 at all.

Does this statement have something to do with the Dawes Plan?

[T.Stahl]

If that plan had something to do with the American petrol industry delivering crucial fuel additives that lasted for the whole war, then yes.

[CZ-75]

No, just a way to avoid paying the frogs reparations, in gold reichsmarks, until the 1970s.


Tell us about our patriotic petroleum industry. I thought Germany fought the war on Ruhr coal-based synthetics and Romanian and N. African oil.

[Mike Irwin]

Yes, and the United States provided a lot of the petroleum and the steel that fueled the Japanese war machine, too.

My question to that is, so how would anyone know in the 1930s that there's going to be a war in the 1940s?

Just when do you shut down trade with the nation that you suspect will become the agressor?

Simple answer is you can't know, unless you have a time machine.

[Stephen Ewing]

IIRC, (I loaned the book out) the Standard Oil-I.G.Farben connection got the Luftwaffe about two years worth of an additive whose name and purpose eludes me, and I'll never know how they got Roosevelt administration approval, in 1938, but it's a little hard to view that as a greater crime than the contemporary Munich.

Steve

[T.Stahl]

Yes, Germany produced a lot of its gasoline by liquefying coal, but it lacked the additives to rise the octane number and prevent the engines from knocking (right word?).
And yes again, the delivery took place shortly before the war broke out.


My question to that is, so how would anyone know in the 1930s that there's going to be a war in the 1940s?

Well, how was anyone to know that the mujaheddins would change their minds and objectives? Or Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Pinochet,... . Oh this damned thinking of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Berkov]

So France should have attacked Germany in the early thirties (remember Hitler only gained real power in '33) because she should have known that Hitler was going to start a new world war, but America is at no fault for trading with Germany for vital war supplies up until the actual war?

This is absurd. Hindsight is always 20/20, but the view at the time for both situations was quite different. I have said this a thousand times on several different boards, but the argument that the western powers should have attacked Germany based on the SITUATION AT THE TIME, is absolutely fallacious.

[T.Stahl]

..., but America is at no fault for trading with Germany for vital war supplies up until the actual war?

...and after the war started.
And guess who filled up German U-boats in the Atlantic?
And guess why the OPEL and FORD factories weren't bombed?
(And when they were bombed Henry Ford was bold enough to demand reparations from the US government!)

[Stephen Ewing]

And guess who filled up German U-boats in the Atlantic?

Okay, I give: Who?

I am absolutely certain the U.S. did NOT, repeat, NOT perform this act. I would be VERY interested in citations of this action, as I've got a few shelf-feet on the U-boat war, and NOBODY, British, German, or American even hints at this.

Excluding, of course, a handful of activities very similar to the Graf Spee's behavior in Monte Video.

Incidentally, how could Henry Ford sue for the bombing of a Ford factory that wasn't bombed?

Steve

[CZ-75]

So France should have attacked Germany in the early thirties (remember Hitler only gained real power in '33) because she should have known that Hitler was going to start a new world war, but America is at no fault for trading with Germany for vital war supplies up until the actual war?


For my part, France should have attacked in '36 when Hitler occupied the DEMILITARIZED Rhineland with troops. A clearer belligerent act would be harder to imagine w/o actually occupying French territory.

This was, after all, a buffer meant to safeguard France's borders.

Hardly absurd, and definitely within the timeframe of Hitler's power. Germany was just re-arming, too. So not much of a threat to France's resources or stability, unless 2M French troops aren't the equal of a German battalion (don't answer that.).

[CZ-75]

additives to rise the octane number and prevent the engines from knocking

Tetra-ethyl lead?

[Vladimir Berkov]

[/B][/QUOTE].
Hardly absurd, and definitely within the timeframe of Hitler's power. Germany was just re-arming, too. So not much of a threat to France's resources or stability, unless 2M French troops aren't the equal of a German battalion (don't answer that.).[/B][/QUOTE]

You don't seem to understand. It is not that France could not have defeated Germany militarily at that time. It is that the people as a whole simply did not want another war. As I have said too many times, things look different depending on your time reference and cultural reference. France in the 30's had still not gotten over WW1, and the loss of millions of men, millions of francs, and a huge chunk of land. Not to mention the fact that France was in the middle of a depression, one which had started earlier and was harsher than the American Great Depression.

And in any case, it was not just throwing the Germans out of a narrow strip of territory. Such an action could easily spark full-scale hostilities with Germany, necessitating invading Germany proper, or fighting an extended war along the border, neither of which France was prepared to do.

[CZ-75]

I understand all too clearly that France didn't have the will to fight, the reasons for which you've explained quite well.

That France would have fought a protracted war w/ the Germans seems silly, but then that is colored by perspective given by the benefit of time. The Germans were ordered to retreat at the first sign of French military activity.

I further believe that the French ambassador (Poincare?) had an inkling of the German plan, yet the French didn't even bother to send reinforcements to dissuade the Germans from making the attempt.

[Mike Irwin]

"Well, how was anyone to know that the mujaheddins would change their minds and objectives? Or Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Pinochet,... . Oh this damned thinking of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". :rolleyes: "

And your point is?

It sounds almost as if you're advocating strict national isolationism at all times...


As for Britain and France in 1937 and early 1938, it's likely that a war would not have been necessary -- a hard line approach would likely have sufficied at that time.

Germany was in no real condition or position to start a war in Europe against France in 1938, either.

By many accounts, Hitler was shocked that France and Britain rolled so easily on the subject of Czechoslovakia. The surrender of the Seudetenland (sp?), without consultation of the Czech government, indicated to Hitler that France and Germany wouldn't fight over the rest of Czechoslovakia, either, and he was right.

He also figured, wrongly, as history records, that they wouldn't fight over Poland, either.

By that time, though, the German military had been given an extra 18 months to arm, which, combined with French and British actions, made war inevitable.



The insinuation that American forces fueled Kriegsmarine vessels prior to the entry of the US into the war is an absolute, complete, LIE.

American policies toward Germany after mid-1939 were very clear. While all nations were theoretically able to participate in the "cash and carry" and later "lend lease" programs, officially any items asked for by Germany or Italy were either "back ordered" or were simply "unavailable." After the initiation of hostilities in 1939, no aid for Germany was available in America.

As for the location of American companies in Germany that aided the German war effort, there were German companies in the United States that aided the American war effort.

Overseas corporations were as much a fact of life in 1939 as they are today.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

It's not as if Henry Ford was placing orders for steel for tanks and trucks for the Opal plant, nor was FoMoCo profiting from the businesses that were supplying the Nazi war effort.

At the outbreak of hostilities, the US formally seized most businesses owned by German corporations, and Germany reciprocated.

[T.Stahl]

German U-boats were filled up by ships flying the US flag (not US forces) after the war had started and before the US entered the war.

Yes, tetra-ethyl lead, the stuff that makes gasoline "leaded". I just couldn't remember its name.

Mike, my point is that we all make mistakes in our foreign politics. Just look at the inventory of the armies of states we don't like. Iraq has Bo 105 helicopters, Iran has F-14s and Cobras (if they have any spares left). I only suggest to be careful. Who knows if Egypt and Saudi-Arabia will one day decide to use their Abrams and F-15s against Israel instead of to keep Iraq and Libya at bay.

[RTW]

I'm pretty sure that all the subs ran on diesel fuel. I don't think it needs lead additive.

Aviation gas is another story.

[T.Stahl]

Of course the subs ran on diesel, German subs getting refilled by US merchant ships is a different part of the story.

But: no tetra-ethyl lead = no mighty Luftwaffe to support the Blitzkrieg :(

[1goodshot]

I hear the French only take a bath every 2 or 3 days, we dont need them stinking up the war. Let them stay home.

[Stephen Ewing]

The Luftwaffe secured a two-year supply of tetra-ethyl lead in 1938 from Standard Oil, assuming peace-time consumption. This essentially was only useful during the blitz through Poland, where it wasn't particularly crucial. Roosevelt signing off on it is, admittedly, shameful. See "The Crime and Punishment of I.G Farben" for details.

There's a SERIOUS misunderstanding somewhere on the "American" vessels fueling U-boats. I can name some of them, although I can't recall off the top of my head what was painted on the stern when they were flying American flags: Atlantis, Kormoran, Pinguin, and Orion spring to mind. All commissioned Kriegsmarine vessels, armed as merchant raiders, flying the flags of whoever was handy, frequently British, Greek, Norwegian, or Japanese.

Or, pretending for a moment that they WERE American, how in the name of Marian Rejewski are they supposed to talk to BdU to schedule a meeting with a U-boat? Which brings up why BdU ran an all-German operation.

To recap, yes, American fueling U-boats is just that, a story.

Steve

[Vladimir Berkov]

As I have said on Glock Talk, discussing historical hypotheticals has very severe limits. Some historians would say that the very concept is impossible. I used to be a history major before I changed to economics, so I know many historians who flatly refuse to speculate about hypothetical scenarios.

History is full of "what ifs" and it is only natural to speculate on what our forefathers should have done. In certain cases one is able to make a value judgement based on current evidence and current mindset. In other cases, the situation is nebulous and in yet others completely unclear.

My point (if I even have one) is that to Americans or even Europeans of 1933-39 the choice was not between going to war against Hitler early to make sure he didn't become more powerful and appeasement. Most contemporaries simply didn't see the situation in that light. Many people indeed saw another war brewing, but it was unclear about how it would start, which countries would be most important, and how it would end.

For example, many thought the Maginot line would hold, and France's millions of troops quickly dispatch any German invasions. Others thought Russia would ally with Germany to take on the rest of western Europe. Still others thought that Italy would be the impetus behind European conquests.